I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby
On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>
wrote:
Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well unless
anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
> going on.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides
>> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least
>> as far as we know, works.
>>
>> - Bobby
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
>> in master.
>>
>> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
>> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to
>> hear what other people think.
>>
>> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the
>> master and 0.9.3 branches:
>>
>> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
>> supervisor
>> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
>>
>> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small
>> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
>>> - Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
>>> this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harsha
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
>>>> do so please do.
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
>> STORM-350.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
>> seems
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
>> be
>>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
>> what is
>>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Name : 임 정택
>>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> http://nathanmarz.com
